[Sorry for the blog neglect the last few months!]
Every year about this time the Christians start making a big thing about how "Christmas" is about Christ, because "Christ" is in the name of the holiday. "Put Christ back in Christmas!" they insist. It isn't good enough to wish someone "Happy holidays!" It has to be "Merry CHRISTmas!"
These members of the word-police want to force all of us to celebrate this universal holiday at the time of the winter solstice in their way, or no way. They overlook quite a few facts that really make their attitude ridiculous:
- The holiday was a pagan holiday long before the Christians adopted it. It celebrated the solstice (the sun turning in the sky, the days beginning to get longer rather than shorter) and the many pagan gods to whom the solstice was attributed, such as Mithras (also called "the Unconquered Sun").
- Many Christians condemned (and still condemn) the celebration of the holiday, including the early Christian settlers of New England, precisely because of its non-Christian (pagan) origin.
- Jesus was not born in December, but more likely in the spring, if shepherds really were watching their flocks by night. Mithras, however, was born on December 25, according to legend.
And what does the name of a day really have to do with the purpose or meaning of the day? If Christians insist that the name "Christmas" requires a particular interpretation, including memorializing their god on that day, then we heathens must also insist that Wednesday be acknowledged as what its name says: Woden's Day. Woden is, of course, the king of the gods in the original Norse and Germanic religions. And much of the rest of the week is in honor of the pagan gods as well. Tuesday honors Tiu, the Norse god of war. Thursday belongs to Thor, the god of thunder. And Friday is the day to honor the goddess Freia, goddess of beauty.
So I say, let the Christians have December 25 if they are willing to let us heathens have all the days that are named after the original gods.
They can still hold their Bible-study sessions on Woden's day, and at the end of the week express their thanks by saying "Thank god it's Freya's day!"
Let's put the gods back in the weekdays!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
More Problems About God
Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What About The Bible?
People often quote a Bible passage to me, implying that the Bible is the ultimate authority on the subject (morals, geology, science, history, philosophy).
I see absolutely no reason why I should pay much attention to what the Bible says, and certainly no reason to consider it to be the "word of God." In fact, I can think of quite a few good reasons NOT to consider it as anything more than a collection of the myths, legends and beliefs of a very primitive and superstitious people. The fear of death is something that the priests have drilled into us in order to allow them to have power over us. They are simply insurance salesmen, and they have to make you are afraid of something before you will buy their insurance against it.
I have not only read the Bible very carefully, but I have also spent considerable time studying it. It was my reading of the Bible that first convinced me that there was nothing holy or inspired about it, since it so full of contradictions, errors, absurdities and even condonation of evil. The mere fact that there are so many thousands of Jewish and Christian sects, all with differing doctrines, all claiming the Bible as the basis of their doctrines, proves how unreliable it is.
My extensive notes run to 64 pages fine print.
I have - encouraged by Christian friends - read the works of many Christian apologists: C. S. Lewis, John Warwick Montgomery, Ron Rhodes, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Simon Greenleaf, Alfred Edersheim, (and others), and I find them consistently illogical and unable to deal satisfactorily with the obvious Bible problems. I also find that my Christian friends are usually unwilling to read any of the books which I recommend to them about the Bible and Christianity.
The Jesus that most Christians worship is certainly not anyone who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago, but is an artificial (mythical) construct of people who never even knew Jesus or the people whom he supposedly taught. The history of early Christianity is a forgery constructed by the Roman church, as is becoming ever more clear with the discovery of long-suppressed Christian writings which contradict traditional Christian doctrine. To put it bluntly: the New Testament is a pious fraud.
.
And please don't suggest that one must read the Bible "in the proper Spirit" unless you can define what you mean as something other than simply "being willing to accept whatever it says as the Word of God."
I see absolutely no reason why I should pay much attention to what the Bible says, and certainly no reason to consider it to be the "word of God." In fact, I can think of quite a few good reasons NOT to consider it as anything more than a collection of the myths, legends and beliefs of a very primitive and superstitious people. The fear of death is something that the priests have drilled into us in order to allow them to have power over us. They are simply insurance salesmen, and they have to make you are afraid of something before you will buy their insurance against it.
I have not only read the Bible very carefully, but I have also spent considerable time studying it. It was my reading of the Bible that first convinced me that there was nothing holy or inspired about it, since it so full of contradictions, errors, absurdities and even condonation of evil. The mere fact that there are so many thousands of Jewish and Christian sects, all with differing doctrines, all claiming the Bible as the basis of their doctrines, proves how unreliable it is.
My extensive notes run to 64 pages fine print.
I have - encouraged by Christian friends - read the works of many Christian apologists: C. S. Lewis, John Warwick Montgomery, Ron Rhodes, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Simon Greenleaf, Alfred Edersheim, (and others), and I find them consistently illogical and unable to deal satisfactorily with the obvious Bible problems. I also find that my Christian friends are usually unwilling to read any of the books which I recommend to them about the Bible and Christianity.
The Jesus that most Christians worship is certainly not anyone who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago, but is an artificial (mythical) construct of people who never even knew Jesus or the people whom he supposedly taught. The history of early Christianity is a forgery constructed by the Roman church, as is becoming ever more clear with the discovery of long-suppressed Christian writings which contradict traditional Christian doctrine. To put it bluntly: the New Testament is a pious fraud.
.
And please don't suggest that one must read the Bible "in the proper Spirit" unless you can define what you mean as something other than simply "being willing to accept whatever it says as the Word of God."
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Easter - The Ancient (Pre-Christian) Festival
Happy Easter to All!
As at Christmas, when we are urged to bring back the "true meaning" of the holiday, so at Easter are we urged to do so, especially by letters to the editor and columns on the religious page of the newspaper.
Of course, we all have the right to use any reason we like for celebrating any holiday. But the implication that your Easter celebration is authentic only if you do it with the Christian resurrection in mind betrays an ignorance of religious history.
This holiday has been celebrated every spring all over the world in an unbroken tradition going back to many centuries before Jesus was even born, and thus cannot have had any original connection to him.
Easter was originally (and still is) a celebration of the fertility of the earth, renewed each springtime. The egg, the chick, the rabbit, the flowers, are all fertility symbols (and much older than the Christian symbol of the resurrected god). Its celebration has often been marked by sexual exuberance, as is still prominent in the pre-Lenten Carneval and Mardi Gras festivals and the phallic symbolism of the May pole and the cross.
Long before Jesus, many peoples associated this festival with the coming back to life of the god of fertility (Tammuz - see Ezek 8:14, Adonis, Osiris, Perseus, Orpheus), who had been dead in the underworld during the winter. Even the name by which Christians still celebrate the festival is a corruption of the name of the ancient fertility goddess Ishtar or Ashtoreth (whose name also survives in the name of one of the books of the Old Testament, the only Bible book that contains no reference to God - the Book of Esther).
The Christian church, because it could not eradicate the celebration of this popular festival, reinterpreted it and assigned to it a new meaning, but was unable to erase completely its original significance. Undoubtedly current attempts by Christians will have no more success. The egg and the rabbit, the phallic pole or cross (the real symbols of the festival) will continue to be loved and celebrated as long as we can marvel at the new life which the spring brings.
As at Christmas, when we are urged to bring back the "true meaning" of the holiday, so at Easter are we urged to do so, especially by letters to the editor and columns on the religious page of the newspaper.
Of course, we all have the right to use any reason we like for celebrating any holiday. But the implication that your Easter celebration is authentic only if you do it with the Christian resurrection in mind betrays an ignorance of religious history.
This holiday has been celebrated every spring all over the world in an unbroken tradition going back to many centuries before Jesus was even born, and thus cannot have had any original connection to him.
Easter was originally (and still is) a celebration of the fertility of the earth, renewed each springtime. The egg, the chick, the rabbit, the flowers, are all fertility symbols (and much older than the Christian symbol of the resurrected god). Its celebration has often been marked by sexual exuberance, as is still prominent in the pre-Lenten Carneval and Mardi Gras festivals and the phallic symbolism of the May pole and the cross.
Long before Jesus, many peoples associated this festival with the coming back to life of the god of fertility (Tammuz - see Ezek 8:14, Adonis, Osiris, Perseus, Orpheus), who had been dead in the underworld during the winter. Even the name by which Christians still celebrate the festival is a corruption of the name of the ancient fertility goddess Ishtar or Ashtoreth (whose name also survives in the name of one of the books of the Old Testament, the only Bible book that contains no reference to God - the Book of Esther).
The Christian church, because it could not eradicate the celebration of this popular festival, reinterpreted it and assigned to it a new meaning, but was unable to erase completely its original significance. Undoubtedly current attempts by Christians will have no more success. The egg and the rabbit, the phallic pole or cross (the real symbols of the festival) will continue to be loved and celebrated as long as we can marvel at the new life which the spring brings.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Respect for Religious Scruples Being Enacted Into Law
The Idaho state legislature is considering a law which would allow pharmacists licensed and practicing in that state to refuse to fill prescriptions which are offensive to their religious beliefs. So a Catholic pharmacist in Idaho could refuse to dispense birth control pills. Even though the prescription is legal, and neither the doctor nor the customer have any religious objection to birth control.
The bill has already passed the House and is now going to the Senate. It is supported by many religious groups as a proper recognition of religious conscience and respect for individual religious scruples.
I have not read the text of the bill, so I don't know whether a pharmacy could refuse to hire a Catholic pharmacist whom they knew would refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. I suspect that the bill requires "reasonable accommodation."
I think the bill will soon be considered not broad enough.
What about a mortuary who hires a Hassidic Jew? Orthodox Jews believe that touching a dead body makes one "unclean."
Muslim cab drivers in large cities such as New York refuse to take passengers who are carrying alcoholic beverages. Shouldn't they be protected, too?
It is against the Mormon religion to use coffee, tobacco, or tea (as well as alcohol). Should a restaurant be forced to hire a Mormon who refuses to serve coffee to a customer, or a glass of wine?
Should a Muslim be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich, if he works in a deli?
A simpler solution: if you are Catholic, don't become a pharmacist. If you're a Jew, don't look for a job in a deli or a funeral parlor. If you're a Mormon waiter, go get a job in some small town in Utah.
But it seems to be perfectly all right that nonbelievers are paid their wages in money that says "In God We Trust." And nobody objects if the nonbeliever's children have to recite the Pledge to the flag with the words "under God."
Religious attitudes need less respect, not more.
The bill has already passed the House and is now going to the Senate. It is supported by many religious groups as a proper recognition of religious conscience and respect for individual religious scruples.
I have not read the text of the bill, so I don't know whether a pharmacy could refuse to hire a Catholic pharmacist whom they knew would refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. I suspect that the bill requires "reasonable accommodation."
I think the bill will soon be considered not broad enough.
What about a mortuary who hires a Hassidic Jew? Orthodox Jews believe that touching a dead body makes one "unclean."
Muslim cab drivers in large cities such as New York refuse to take passengers who are carrying alcoholic beverages. Shouldn't they be protected, too?
It is against the Mormon religion to use coffee, tobacco, or tea (as well as alcohol). Should a restaurant be forced to hire a Mormon who refuses to serve coffee to a customer, or a glass of wine?
Should a Muslim be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich, if he works in a deli?
A simpler solution: if you are Catholic, don't become a pharmacist. If you're a Jew, don't look for a job in a deli or a funeral parlor. If you're a Mormon waiter, go get a job in some small town in Utah.
But it seems to be perfectly all right that nonbelievers are paid their wages in money that says "In God We Trust." And nobody objects if the nonbeliever's children have to recite the Pledge to the flag with the words "under God."
Religious attitudes need less respect, not more.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Religion vs Superstition
The Pope has been in Africa this week, and performed mass there.
He urged the Catholic Africans to help their countrymen to abandon superstition, magic, reliance on shamans and witch doctors. They should rather accept Christianity (in its Roman Catholic form, of course).
It is dangerous to believe in such superstitions, Benedict said.
Indeed! I agree with His Holiness entirely.
It is dangerous (as well as emotionally harmful) to believe such superstitious things as these:
- sprinkling with magic water while a witch doctor says magic words will wipe away your faults;
- a priest saying the proper words will turn a cracker into actual flesh;
- eating a bite of magic cracker-flesh will make you acceptable to the gods;
- if a demon possesses someone you love, you can get a witch doctor to "exorcise" the demon by waving a cross over him and saying certain magic words;
- you had better participate in the magic rituals on special magic days, at least twice a year;
- you can ask holy dead people for special favors;
- burning candles on an altar has a magic effect and will bring you your wishes;
- a Jewish rabbi who was executed two thousand years ago for treason wants you to devote your life to him.
Yes, superstition can be a terrible thing, if you let it get hold of your mind.
He urged the Catholic Africans to help their countrymen to abandon superstition, magic, reliance on shamans and witch doctors. They should rather accept Christianity (in its Roman Catholic form, of course).
It is dangerous to believe in such superstitions, Benedict said.
Indeed! I agree with His Holiness entirely.
It is dangerous (as well as emotionally harmful) to believe such superstitious things as these:
- sprinkling with magic water while a witch doctor says magic words will wipe away your faults;
- a priest saying the proper words will turn a cracker into actual flesh;
- eating a bite of magic cracker-flesh will make you acceptable to the gods;
- if a demon possesses someone you love, you can get a witch doctor to "exorcise" the demon by waving a cross over him and saying certain magic words;
- you had better participate in the magic rituals on special magic days, at least twice a year;
- you can ask holy dead people for special favors;
- burning candles on an altar has a magic effect and will bring you your wishes;
- a Jewish rabbi who was executed two thousand years ago for treason wants you to devote your life to him.
Yes, superstition can be a terrible thing, if you let it get hold of your mind.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Pope's Solution to AIDS
The Pope is visiting Africa now, and speaking there about the many problems that plague that great continent.
One of the most troublesome problems is the prevalence of AIDS, a withering disease that is usually (but not always) transmitted by sexual contact. The easiest and most widespread preventive measure is the use of condoms. Where condoms have been widely distributed and have been easily available, the incidence of AIDS has dramatically decreased.
But the Pope is opposed to promoting the use of condoms in Africa as a means for preventing the spread of this life-threatening disease. His alternative solution?
Abstinence!
Yes, His Holiness suggests that an entire continent become celibate. No more sex, no more physical love, no more children.
Why, one must ask, is the Pope so opposed to condoms? The answer seems obvious: for so many years the Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to any form of birth control (except abstinence, or the so-called "rhythm method"), and condom use was one of the most widely used contraceptive methods. One must suspect that it is only that long aversion to condoms as contraceptives that now colors the Catholic pontiff's rejection of a simple and effective method of preventing death for millions of Africans.
Another example of narrow-minded religious dogma causing human suffering.
Fortunately, most people ignore the pronouncements of the Pope. Thank God for that!
One of the most troublesome problems is the prevalence of AIDS, a withering disease that is usually (but not always) transmitted by sexual contact. The easiest and most widespread preventive measure is the use of condoms. Where condoms have been widely distributed and have been easily available, the incidence of AIDS has dramatically decreased.
But the Pope is opposed to promoting the use of condoms in Africa as a means for preventing the spread of this life-threatening disease. His alternative solution?
Abstinence!
Yes, His Holiness suggests that an entire continent become celibate. No more sex, no more physical love, no more children.
Why, one must ask, is the Pope so opposed to condoms? The answer seems obvious: for so many years the Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to any form of birth control (except abstinence, or the so-called "rhythm method"), and condom use was one of the most widely used contraceptive methods. One must suspect that it is only that long aversion to condoms as contraceptives that now colors the Catholic pontiff's rejection of a simple and effective method of preventing death for millions of Africans.
Another example of narrow-minded religious dogma causing human suffering.
Fortunately, most people ignore the pronouncements of the Pope. Thank God for that!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
More Problems With God
Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why believing in God is difficult
One of the big reasons that makes it difficult to lend any credence to a belief in God (and I'm referring here to the God that Christians and Jews worship) is that nobody can say much about God without finally talking in absurdities and contradictions.
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Why do you choose to be an atheist?"
A Christian recently congratulated me on having given up the religion of my youth (which he rightly viewed as a "cult"), but then asked me quite puzzled, "But why did you choose atheism as its replacement?"
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Friday, January 30, 2009
More About Atheists
Here are a few more misconceptions about atheists.
"Atheists are rebelling against God." Since atheists do not have a belief in any gods, such a statement makes no sense. Only believers could possibly rebel against their own god, and only believers make this statement about atheists. It would make as much sense to accuse a Christian of "rebelling against Wotan, Thor and Freya."
"Atheists hate God." Same problem as above. You can't hate something that you do not believe actually exists. Some atheists may hate the IDEA of "God" but that it quite different from hating God. Only a believer in God can possibly hate him (or her, or it). When you stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, did you hate the Tooth Fairy? Of course not!
"There are no atheists in foxholes!" This statement is used by believers to cast doubt on the sincerity and firmness of an atheist's nonbelief when in a crisis situation. It is not based on any evidence. In fact, many atheists have served in the military, under fire, without feeling the need to acknowledge the existence of any god. There is even an organization of atheists in the military: The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
For an excellent analysis of the falsity of the assertion, see this link: http://tinyurl.com/6reake
"Atheists want to take over the government and control our society!" I find this accusation bitterly ironic when it comes from a devout Christian. All atheists want is that NO special group - believers or non-believers - determines how our society functions. But many Christians are working very hard to make Christianity the basis for all the rules and customs of our society.
I suppose the Christian fear of atheists becoming too influential is based on the following facts:
"Atheists are rebelling against God." Since atheists do not have a belief in any gods, such a statement makes no sense. Only believers could possibly rebel against their own god, and only believers make this statement about atheists. It would make as much sense to accuse a Christian of "rebelling against Wotan, Thor and Freya."
"Atheists hate God." Same problem as above. You can't hate something that you do not believe actually exists. Some atheists may hate the IDEA of "God" but that it quite different from hating God. Only a believer in God can possibly hate him (or her, or it). When you stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, did you hate the Tooth Fairy? Of course not!
"There are no atheists in foxholes!" This statement is used by believers to cast doubt on the sincerity and firmness of an atheist's nonbelief when in a crisis situation. It is not based on any evidence. In fact, many atheists have served in the military, under fire, without feeling the need to acknowledge the existence of any god. There is even an organization of atheists in the military: The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
For an excellent analysis of the falsity of the assertion, see this link: http://tinyurl.com/6reake
"Atheists want to take over the government and control our society!" I find this accusation bitterly ironic when it comes from a devout Christian. All atheists want is that NO special group - believers or non-believers - determines how our society functions. But many Christians are working very hard to make Christianity the basis for all the rules and customs of our society.
I suppose the Christian fear of atheists becoming too influential is based on the following facts:
- Almost all members of Congress are atheists.
- That is because it is almost impossible to get elected to public office unless you affirm your lack of faith in God.
- Both houses of Congress open each day's session with remarks from a professional atheist (whose salary is paid by the government) to the effect that no belief in God will influence the deliberations.
- All our money says: "We trust in ourselves because there is no God."
- School children start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the phrase: "...one nation, without God,..."
- Government offices are closed one day a week, the day when most atheists attend their atheist meetings (Wednesday).
- Towns all across America are dotted with atheist meeting-houses, where atheists gather once a week to bolster their lack of belief in God.
- Believers who want to get married, but don't want a judge to perform the ceremony, have to find a professional atheist to do it, since God-believing ministers are not allowed to perform weddings.
- When taking a formal oath, it is customary to place the left hand on a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
- Each unit of the military has a professional atheist attached to it, to minister to military personnel and conduct atheist meetings. They are paid a salary by the government.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
At Last! We're acknowledged as Americans!
At last we non-believers are acknowledged as an important part of the American populace!
President Obama said, in his inaugural address on January 20, 2009:
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."
"...and NON-BELIEVERS"! Think of that!
What a welcome contrast with what some previous presidents and national leaders have said about non-believers!
The elder Bush denied that an atheist even deserved to be considered as a citizen or a patriot!
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist American Atheist Press and George H. W. Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
At least Bill Clinton acknowledged the American right not to believe: At the 1996 presidential debate in San Diego, Clinton said:
"We have the most religious freedom of any country in the world, including the freedom not to believe."
President Obama said, in his inaugural address on January 20, 2009:
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."
"...and NON-BELIEVERS"! Think of that!
What a welcome contrast with what some previous presidents and national leaders have said about non-believers!
The elder Bush denied that an atheist even deserved to be considered as a citizen or a patriot!
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist American Atheist Press and George H. W. Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
At least Bill Clinton acknowledged the American right not to believe: At the 1996 presidential debate in San Diego, Clinton said:
"We have the most religious freedom of any country in the world, including the freedom not to believe."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
All About Atheists
Many people have quite mistaken ideas about atheists. Usually it is because they don't really understand what an atheist is, and what an atheist is not. Which is a shame, because it's really quite simple.
First of all, one must understand what a "theist" is. A theist is anybody who believes in God, or a god, or gods, or some deity. Got that?
All right, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist. The "a-" in "atheist" is just the Greek prefix that means "not" or "non-," so that an atheist is a non-theist, that is, one who does not have a belief in God, or a god, or gods, or any deity.
And that is ALL you can say about atheists. To say any more is to make unwarranted assertions. Because atheists are not a group, and have ONLY that one thing in common: non-belief in a deity.
Here are some unwarranted assertsions that people (usually theists) make about atheists.
"Atheists claim that God does not exist." No, although some atheists may make this claim, not all atheists do. Many non-believers realize that such an assertion is unnecessary. The reasons people have no belief in God may vary, from "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "I don't see any convincing evidence that would allow me to believe." Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. We all entered the world as atheists.
"Atheists have no moral guidance." Belief in God has nothing to do with whether one is moral or not. A theist's morality may well be based on a belief in God (and God's rules), but workable moral codes can be derived without such a belief. And they are often more humane than moral codes based on religion. Probably the majority of atheists are good people, good citizens, and good neighbors. Statistics indicate that poor moral conduct (teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, violent crime, etc.) seems to be much more common in highly religious areas (the American "Bible belt") than in areas that are more secular (northern Europe). And the population of American prisons is overwhelmingly religious, with atheists making up only a tiny minority of the criminal population, far less than their proportion of the population at large.
"Atheists believe that death ends everything." Although many atheists hold this view, not all do, since belief in an afterlife has nothing to do necessarily with a belief in God. The Jewish Sadducees, for example, believed in God, but did not believe in an afterlife. And Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but have very little to say about the existence of God. Some atheists, like Buddhists, believe in reincarnation (which does not depend on a belief in God).
"Atheists see no purpose in life." This mistaken notion is probably a corollary to the previous mistaken notion. Again, whether one sees a purpose in life has nothing to do necessarily with belief in God. Many atheists lead happy, purposeful lives. Especially when an atheist believes (as many do) that death is the end, it seems to give even more purpose to the precious lifetime that we do have.
"Atheists hate religion and churches." Many atheists may feel this way, but many do not. Most atheists probably feel sorry for believers. And many probably are angry at the human misery that has often been caused in the name of some God. But surely we all should be angry at that, shouldn't we, believer and non-believer alike?
"If someone simply doesn't know whether to believe in God, he is an agnostic, not an atheist." Remember that "a-theist" merely means "non-theist." If someone says, "I really don't know whether there is a God" (the position of someone who claims to be "agnostic"), he is implying that he does not now have a belief in God. So an agnostic is merely a sub-set of atheist.
First of all, one must understand what a "theist" is. A theist is anybody who believes in God, or a god, or gods, or some deity. Got that?
All right, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist. The "a-" in "atheist" is just the Greek prefix that means "not" or "non-," so that an atheist is a non-theist, that is, one who does not have a belief in God, or a god, or gods, or any deity.
And that is ALL you can say about atheists. To say any more is to make unwarranted assertions. Because atheists are not a group, and have ONLY that one thing in common: non-belief in a deity.
Here are some unwarranted assertsions that people (usually theists) make about atheists.
"Atheists claim that God does not exist." No, although some atheists may make this claim, not all atheists do. Many non-believers realize that such an assertion is unnecessary. The reasons people have no belief in God may vary, from "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "I don't see any convincing evidence that would allow me to believe." Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. We all entered the world as atheists.
"Atheists have no moral guidance." Belief in God has nothing to do with whether one is moral or not. A theist's morality may well be based on a belief in God (and God's rules), but workable moral codes can be derived without such a belief. And they are often more humane than moral codes based on religion. Probably the majority of atheists are good people, good citizens, and good neighbors. Statistics indicate that poor moral conduct (teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, violent crime, etc.) seems to be much more common in highly religious areas (the American "Bible belt") than in areas that are more secular (northern Europe). And the population of American prisons is overwhelmingly religious, with atheists making up only a tiny minority of the criminal population, far less than their proportion of the population at large.
"Atheists believe that death ends everything." Although many atheists hold this view, not all do, since belief in an afterlife has nothing to do necessarily with a belief in God. The Jewish Sadducees, for example, believed in God, but did not believe in an afterlife. And Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but have very little to say about the existence of God. Some atheists, like Buddhists, believe in reincarnation (which does not depend on a belief in God).
"Atheists see no purpose in life." This mistaken notion is probably a corollary to the previous mistaken notion. Again, whether one sees a purpose in life has nothing to do necessarily with belief in God. Many atheists lead happy, purposeful lives. Especially when an atheist believes (as many do) that death is the end, it seems to give even more purpose to the precious lifetime that we do have.
"Atheists hate religion and churches." Many atheists may feel this way, but many do not. Most atheists probably feel sorry for believers. And many probably are angry at the human misery that has often been caused in the name of some God. But surely we all should be angry at that, shouldn't we, believer and non-believer alike?
"If someone simply doesn't know whether to believe in God, he is an agnostic, not an atheist." Remember that "a-theist" merely means "non-theist." If someone says, "I really don't know whether there is a God" (the position of someone who claims to be "agnostic"), he is implying that he does not now have a belief in God. So an agnostic is merely a sub-set of atheist.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
My Special Friend Jack (A Little Parody)
I am very lucky to have a special friend. His name is Jack. Just Jack. He is quite unusual. For example, he is invisible. Which shows how powerful he is, I think. He can also communicate with me without saying a word, he is so clever. He sticks around (I can almost always feel when he is near) to watch over me and protect me from harm and temptation. And if I ever need anything or want anything, all I have to do is ask Jack. And if Jack approves, he makes sure I get it. Of course, if I ask him for something that wouldn't be good for me, he doesn't let me have it. So I can depend on him to do the best for me.
Jack was also a friend of my dad's, which is how I came to know him. Dad told me all about him. Dad said that long ago Jack was not invisible, but just like you and me. But then he died (or - and this is the best part - he PRETENDED to die) and his body disappeared, but he just kept right on being alive, so that he could help people like me and my dad.
My friends kid me sometimes about how much I admire Jack and depend on him. And sometimes I think maybe they're right. But then Jack reminds me real quick that I had better not piss him off. Nothing really bad, of course - he makes me bang my finger with a hammer, or makes me get stuck in traffic so I'm late for work. Boy, does that bring me back quick to my senses! I've learned never ever to doubt Jack. He is one powerful dude!
Some of my friends are nicer, and ask me to introduce them to Jack, so that Jack can help them, too. I tell them it's real easy. All you have to do is be ready to notice when Jack shows up. You won't see him, you won't hear him, but you'll know when he's there. And then you just have to do whatever you think Jack would want you to do, because if you do something he doesn't like, he'll dump you.
I'm pretty sure that Jack is so great that when any of his friends are about to die, Jack won't let them. He'll show them how to do exactly what he did: keep right on being alive, even though the body is gone. In fact, I asked Jack about that, and I just had such a wonderful thrill go through my body that I know it was Jack, telling me, "That's right!"
I can't believe how lucky I am, that I got to know Jack.
Jack was also a friend of my dad's, which is how I came to know him. Dad told me all about him. Dad said that long ago Jack was not invisible, but just like you and me. But then he died (or - and this is the best part - he PRETENDED to die) and his body disappeared, but he just kept right on being alive, so that he could help people like me and my dad.
My friends kid me sometimes about how much I admire Jack and depend on him. And sometimes I think maybe they're right. But then Jack reminds me real quick that I had better not piss him off. Nothing really bad, of course - he makes me bang my finger with a hammer, or makes me get stuck in traffic so I'm late for work. Boy, does that bring me back quick to my senses! I've learned never ever to doubt Jack. He is one powerful dude!
Some of my friends are nicer, and ask me to introduce them to Jack, so that Jack can help them, too. I tell them it's real easy. All you have to do is be ready to notice when Jack shows up. You won't see him, you won't hear him, but you'll know when he's there. And then you just have to do whatever you think Jack would want you to do, because if you do something he doesn't like, he'll dump you.
I'm pretty sure that Jack is so great that when any of his friends are about to die, Jack won't let them. He'll show them how to do exactly what he did: keep right on being alive, even though the body is gone. In fact, I asked Jack about that, and I just had such a wonderful thrill go through my body that I know it was Jack, telling me, "That's right!"
I can't believe how lucky I am, that I got to know Jack.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
On the way to hell
Several of my Christian friends are quite concerned for me, I am an atheist. I do not believe in any kind of god, and I do not believe any of the stuff Christians claim about Jesus: that he was the son of God, that he was the Jews' promised Messiah, that he gave his life to atone for the sins of humanity.
Specifically, I don't believe that it does any good to "accept" Jesus as my personal savior. I see no reason to do so. So I don't. (I think it makes more sense to rely on my Fairy Godmother.)
And that means - according to my "born-again" friends - that I am going to hell. I will burn forever in the lake of fire and brimstone, tormented beyond imagination, for all eternity, for ever and ever. What a beautiful and joyful religion!
If one were going to believe in an afterlife, where good people are rewarded and evil people are punished, I can see where that would make some sense. And, as I read the Bible, that seems to be what many passages in the Bible say: we will be judged by what we have done, whether it was good or evil. At least that makes sense, and seems to be the sort of thing a "just" god would use as his standard of judging.
But no, that isn't the way it works, say my friends. Everything depends on whether you "accept Christ." I have asked them, just to make sure I did not misunderstand, "So you are saying that a man who has lived an evil life, committing all kinds of crimes, murders and other evils, who repents and decides to believe in Christ just a week before he is excecuted, will go to heaven?" "Yes, if he truly repents and truly believes."
"But an atheist like me, who has lived his entire life as a good person, helping the needy, obeying the laws, loving his fellow man, and generally contributing to the betterment of humanity, but who sincerely thinks the whole Christ thing is absurd, will suffer eternal torment?" "Yes. It may not seem fair, but that's the way God works, and who are we to question God?"
I will admit that other Christian friends are much kinder, and assure me that somehow God will find a place for atheists in his heaven. I don't think they have read their Bible or listened to the sermons at church, though.
Some of my Christian friends assure me that they are praying for me to see the light and come to Jesus. It doesn't seem to be working. But it doesn't seem to change their belief in the power of prayer.
Specifically, I don't believe that it does any good to "accept" Jesus as my personal savior. I see no reason to do so. So I don't. (I think it makes more sense to rely on my Fairy Godmother.)
And that means - according to my "born-again" friends - that I am going to hell. I will burn forever in the lake of fire and brimstone, tormented beyond imagination, for all eternity, for ever and ever. What a beautiful and joyful religion!
If one were going to believe in an afterlife, where good people are rewarded and evil people are punished, I can see where that would make some sense. And, as I read the Bible, that seems to be what many passages in the Bible say: we will be judged by what we have done, whether it was good or evil. At least that makes sense, and seems to be the sort of thing a "just" god would use as his standard of judging.
But no, that isn't the way it works, say my friends. Everything depends on whether you "accept Christ." I have asked them, just to make sure I did not misunderstand, "So you are saying that a man who has lived an evil life, committing all kinds of crimes, murders and other evils, who repents and decides to believe in Christ just a week before he is excecuted, will go to heaven?" "Yes, if he truly repents and truly believes."
"But an atheist like me, who has lived his entire life as a good person, helping the needy, obeying the laws, loving his fellow man, and generally contributing to the betterment of humanity, but who sincerely thinks the whole Christ thing is absurd, will suffer eternal torment?" "Yes. It may not seem fair, but that's the way God works, and who are we to question God?"
I will admit that other Christian friends are much kinder, and assure me that somehow God will find a place for atheists in his heaven. I don't think they have read their Bible or listened to the sermons at church, though.
Some of my Christian friends assure me that they are praying for me to see the light and come to Jesus. It doesn't seem to be working. But it doesn't seem to change their belief in the power of prayer.
Friday, January 2, 2009
What Good is Faith?
Religious faith can be a dangerous thing. Not always, of course, but all too often. It was religious faith that motivated the slaughter of the Crusades and the cruelties of the Inquisition. Religious faith was what led the men to hijack the airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers. In more subtle ways, it is religious faith which often binds people to false ideas, false hopes, and confining creeds.
I see two benefits (and only two) from religious faith.
For some, faith gives a glimmer of hope (even if unjustified) that there is something better than the world in which we find ourselves, an indifferent and sometimes threatening world, with which many of us are unable to cope if left entirely to ourselves and our fellow humans. It is very comforting, I am sure, to tell yourself that some supernatural, all-powerful being (who naturally has your best interests at heart) is watching over everything and directing it for your benefit. And that if you ask him (or her, or it) nicely enough, and pleadingly enough, and if you are very, very good and faithful, the laws of nature, of cause-and-effect, will be temporarily suspended for you. And even if your pleading does not get the result you desire, it must be a comfort to know that the creator and CEO of the entire universe at least considered your request. And to know that it was probably your own fault that your request was not granted.
But many believers do indeed find this comfort, and I do not begrudge them that. The only slight annoyance I feel is that as a result the believers generally think that we non-believers are poor, miserable, frightened, and sorry souls, joyless and pointless. Nothing could be further from the truth, based on my personal acquaintance with hundreds of atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists. Almost all are happy, well-adjusted, accepting of the limitations of what we can accomplish in the world, but willing to assume the responsibilities of doing what we CAN do, with human (and only human) effort, rather than looking to the heavens for help while we sit on our praying hands.
The second benefit of religious faith was expressed well to me by a Christian friend. He assured me that before he "found Christ" he was a wife-beating, cheating, alcoholic son-of-a-bitch who did not care about anybody but himself. "You would not want to have known me then!" he told me. He went on to say that the only thing that kept him even half-way decent was his religious faith that God did not want him to do all those bad things.
I realized then the great value religious faith has for society, since it keeps people like my friend from being an annoyance and danger to the rest of us. I have had other believers (mostly Christians) assure me that if it weren't for their religious faith, they would be seducing the neighbor's wife, robbing convenience stores, kicking the dog, and grabbing old ladies' purses. "Thank God you believe!" I tell them. "You make life better for the rest of us" (who do not need the threat of divine punishment in order to avoid robbing a bank or raping a cheerleader).
So religious faith is what protects us from those Christians.
But that's it. That's all I can see as benefits of faith. And there are so many drawbacks, if you can possibly do without it.
I see two benefits (and only two) from religious faith.
For some, faith gives a glimmer of hope (even if unjustified) that there is something better than the world in which we find ourselves, an indifferent and sometimes threatening world, with which many of us are unable to cope if left entirely to ourselves and our fellow humans. It is very comforting, I am sure, to tell yourself that some supernatural, all-powerful being (who naturally has your best interests at heart) is watching over everything and directing it for your benefit. And that if you ask him (or her, or it) nicely enough, and pleadingly enough, and if you are very, very good and faithful, the laws of nature, of cause-and-effect, will be temporarily suspended for you. And even if your pleading does not get the result you desire, it must be a comfort to know that the creator and CEO of the entire universe at least considered your request. And to know that it was probably your own fault that your request was not granted.
But many believers do indeed find this comfort, and I do not begrudge them that. The only slight annoyance I feel is that as a result the believers generally think that we non-believers are poor, miserable, frightened, and sorry souls, joyless and pointless. Nothing could be further from the truth, based on my personal acquaintance with hundreds of atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists. Almost all are happy, well-adjusted, accepting of the limitations of what we can accomplish in the world, but willing to assume the responsibilities of doing what we CAN do, with human (and only human) effort, rather than looking to the heavens for help while we sit on our praying hands.
The second benefit of religious faith was expressed well to me by a Christian friend. He assured me that before he "found Christ" he was a wife-beating, cheating, alcoholic son-of-a-bitch who did not care about anybody but himself. "You would not want to have known me then!" he told me. He went on to say that the only thing that kept him even half-way decent was his religious faith that God did not want him to do all those bad things.
I realized then the great value religious faith has for society, since it keeps people like my friend from being an annoyance and danger to the rest of us. I have had other believers (mostly Christians) assure me that if it weren't for their religious faith, they would be seducing the neighbor's wife, robbing convenience stores, kicking the dog, and grabbing old ladies' purses. "Thank God you believe!" I tell them. "You make life better for the rest of us" (who do not need the threat of divine punishment in order to avoid robbing a bank or raping a cheerleader).
So religious faith is what protects us from those Christians.
But that's it. That's all I can see as benefits of faith. And there are so many drawbacks, if you can possibly do without it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)